Overstatement of the Day – Gay Rights Edition
The survival of my own marriage is entirely in the hands of the federal government. I have no right to stay in my own home with my own husband – just the government’s permission until they choose to revoke it. Gays do not have core constitutional rights in America. They have no right even to a secure home. And this president is in no hurry to do anything about it.
There’s no rational basis for allowing Britney Spears but not gays to get married. And I agree that gays who got married in the handful of states that allow or allowed it but live in a state that does not are in a bizarre state of limbo.
But when was the last time that the federal government — or, for that matter, a state or local government in the United States — intervened to deny consenting adults the right to live together in the same domicile? Further, how are Andrew and his husband any less protected in that regard than Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman?
What “core rights” are being denied Andrew owing to his sexuality? Certainly, not his freedom of expression. Or any of his other First Amendment rights.
Are there laws of which I’m unaware that make it harder for a gay man to buy a gun? Can troops be quartered in gay homes? Do police need a warrant to search them? Do gays not get jury trials? The right to an attorney? A jury? Are gays charged higher bails or punished more cruelly and unusually? Can gays not vote?
Indeed, aside from the right to marry a person of the same sex — which is denied to heterosexuals as well, albeit with disparate impact — what rights, core or otherwise, are denied gays?
UPDATE: In the comments below, PD Shaw surmises that Sully is making an oblique reference to his current immigration status limbo which, Alex Knapp suggests, he would not be experiencing were he married to an American woman. This, though, is an issue with bureaucratic discretion in enforcing an outdated and silly law, not gay rights per se.
Similarly, Steve Verdon notes that many municipalities limit the number of unrelated individuals permitted to share a domicile. But that’s neither an anti-gay measure no even a “nanny state” issue but rather locals seeking to maintain the quality of their neighborhoods. One doesn’t buy a single family home in the suburbs with the intent of living next door to 37 migrant workers sharing three bedrooms.